The Stengel Story Breaks Through to Fox News (Update: Video!)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Update (II): And MRC TV has posted the video.
(Click on the image to watch the video.)
Gee, does any of that look familiar? That being said, I’m not actually annoyed so much as proud to get that on the air.
Anyway, let me extend a big thanks to Steven Gutowski of MRC TV. I asked him to post this, this morning, with the promise of links back in return and he did exactly that.
Update: I was wrong, below. You can still “like” my comment over at time, so keep it up.
As regular readers know, a few days ago I published a piece outlining 13 errors in Richard Stengel’s essay on the Constitution. And yesterday, I made my debut at Big Journalism with a modified version of the same piece, entitled Fourteen Clear Factual Errors in Richard Stengel’s Essay on the Constitution (and I am Looking For Your Help. In both versions I created a short, cut-and-paste-ready list of errors and told people to spam the site with them.
So I wake up this morning to see this mention in my twitter by Liz Buddie:
Pretty sure someone used @AaronWorthing ‘s excellent post on Time’s piece abt Constitution at @Patterico as a cheat sheet for Fox segment.
So quickly I turned on the TV and used my Tivo to check and sure enough, they had a segment on the Time Magazine article. Steve Doocy had Judge Napolitano on as a guest, and said something close to this “someone has checked and found a number of errors in Time’s article” and up on the screen was three items. I didn’t have the chance to listen to all of it, but Napolitano was proving each false easily.
To borrow a cliché from Patrick, if that wasn’t my work, I’ll eat my hat. And leaving out my name is not completely surprising. Maybe they just saw the list of errors without seeing who created it, since many people have been cutting and pasting the list without a link back.
So we are seeing signs that the media is taking notice of this journalistic scandal.
And here comes the blegging part. If any of you know where I might find video of that segment or a similar one, please give me a link for that one. I would love to be able to show you what I saw this morning.
Also, in closely related news, Time has shut down comments on that story. Now it could be the case of deciding to close it simply because a certain amount of time had passed. And yet there are items that are older than the Stengel piece, and their comments are open (like here and here). But I have seen other items written on the same day that also closed their comments, so think of it what you will. Either way, it is no longer possible to spam their site, or “like” any of the comments [correction: the “like” function still works] (and my comment was liked 413 times).
But you can still write to the editor, here. Hint, hint.
As I said before, be polite and stick to the facts. If you denounce his philosophy, they will ignore you, but as they say, facts are stubborn things…
You can see the letter I sent them, here.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
This the reciprocal relationship between old and new media I’ve heard so much about.
Bloggers link to and/or reference stories in the media and make their comments and points.
In return, old media steals those comments and points wholesale and use them without attribution.
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 6/30/2011 @ 9:00 amGreat job Aaron.
I have read all of your posts on the scandal and have written about it on my own blog.
Before the Internet and the ubiquity of watch dog’s like you, Stengel and the Times of the world got away with misinforming the public.
Thankfully, those days are over.
peter (37780f) — 6/30/2011 @ 9:11 amPeter
i have been meaning to do a post on other blogger’s reax for a couple days, so that is good timing from you.
And I believe Rep. Weiner’s last line in his resignation speech was “I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for those meddling kids!”
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/30/2011 @ 9:49 amAlso, please don’t copy Aaron’s letter. People know when you’re just copying. I’ve seen it big time when comments for FCC regulations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. All the telemarketers write the exact same thing, and it is very unpersuasive. Write your comments on Aaron’s stuff the way you’d have written it, not his way, and they’ll know you thought about it.
And congratulations for Aaron starting to make it into the big time news outlets. His stuff is usually very good and deserves a larger audience.
Jeff Mitchell (481f2a) — 6/30/2011 @ 10:10 amJeff, that is a very good point.
and thanks for the high praise.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/30/2011 @ 10:27 amI don’t like Spam either, then again there’s only
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/30/2011 @ 10:29 amso many ways that you can rebut this point,
Aaron,
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/30/2011 @ 10:31 amYour situation is not the first time Fox and other big media outlets have borrowed the research of online bloggers and claimed it as their own work. They owe you an interview at the very least. I have never understood why Fox does not help the conservative online community gain greater recognition. You would think they would want stronger allies. Instead Fox treats the online community like a news clip of Joe Q. Public, or less. At least they ask permission to quote John Q. Public .
This story has probably generated more ad views (i.e. revenue) for Time’s website than anything they have published in a while. I’ll bet that article has been the most profitable piece they have published in ages.
crosspatch (6adcc9) — 6/30/2011 @ 10:35 amcross
i know, i know… but sometimes you have to let things get worse before they get better.
if they start losing readers over this and respect, in the long term they will suffer.
bmertz
i’m not upset about the whole thing. I want the guy to go down, but this is not about glory.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/30/2011 @ 10:46 amUse of anyone’s work without proper attribution is frustrating and wrong. But Aaron, realistically I hope you can see that the benefit to America of this Constitution story making it mainstream is priceless– and that it needs to continue apace.
A while back there was a person who brought his personal archive of Kennedy photos to the Antiques Roadshow. He was the official Kennedy photographer in Dallas that day and took the iconic picture of the bloodstained Mrs. Kennedy in the plane watching Johnson being sworn in. According to him that photo once or twice very early on was credited to him in a news story. But almost from the beginning and henceforth it has been identified only as an “AP newswire photo”. He said his kids are ticked, but that he always understood that it was the photo itself that was important.
elissa (f08e75) — 6/30/2011 @ 10:48 amelissa
i thought i was clear, i wasn’t annoyed…
oh well…
i think a better way to think about it is that during the everyone draw mohammed thing, the artist who made the most famous of the danish cartoons–mohammed with a bomb for a turban–announced he had renounced all copyright on that, pretty much telling the world that anyone could use his work, so that all the people making mohammed cartoons could freely rip him off. i already respected the man for standing up for freedom of speech, but that made me respect him more.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/30/2011 @ 11:22 amI see @ Time’s article they have in RED text “see the CULT of the Constitution” – it links to an article on the Republicans reading the Constitution to start off the session, and is extremely critical.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 6/30/2011 @ 11:29 amI see also their beginning line on their article is what the stupid framers did not know about – they name some modern discoveries and lady gaga.
There we have it according to our lefty tyranny lords of know it all and power over everyone and everything- the Constitution is NOW CRAP – it may have been good then but our poor framers had no way of knowing what TIME would yield.
It’s far worse than I thought – they stomp on the Constitution and throw it out, because “they know better”.
Liberal Unchained Power New World Order
Aaron–
I think I was typing when you posted your 10:46 so did not see it before I hit the submit button at 10:48. Yes, you have made it clear that you are taking a very responsible and clear-headed approach to all this. Again, congrats on your good work that appears to be getting widely disseminated.
elissa (f08e75) — 6/30/2011 @ 11:33 amsilicon
you know the other thing is the founders knew about alot of thing we didn’t know about.
like what it is like to live under tyranny. how the rule of law could be tossed aside, how the passions of a legislature could lead to oppression.
which seems more important than knowing about lady gaga.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/30/2011 @ 11:33 amThey had the experience with George 111, but they had the memory of Cromwell, Gibbon was being circulated, and they knew how democracy had degenerated into tyranny, in Greece and Rome.
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/30/2011 @ 11:56 amI wrote to tell them they should put a warning on the outside of the magazine. It should read something like this: We cannot guarantee the truth or accuracy of the contents of this magazine. The reader should read it at his or her own peril.
rochf (f3fbb0) — 6/30/2011 @ 11:59 amian
as one blogger wrote, they knew how to read cicero in latin.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/30/2011 @ 12:01 pmAaron
I appreciate your attitude and your modesty. You have never struck me as a glory hound.
The controversy over the media’s professional behavior, in this case, the citation of another’s research, is far larger than this one incident. This widespread unprofessional behavior undermines the voice of conservative and libertarian bloggers. It is not a matter of “giving glory”, but rather that such actions limit the political influence of conservative and libertarian blogs. Congressional representatives also imitate this behavior. I do not mean to paint with too broad a brush, but stealing intellectual property makes Fox look unprofessional. None of us want that result. Neither should the news director at Fox.
In contrast, liberal blogs are cited, interviewed and wined and dined by the liberal media and congressional members. Media outlets appear to understand their value. Apparently Fox does not “get it”.
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/30/2011 @ 12:07 pmLaBamba on University is calling my name 🙂
Did you see where Time’s Halperin got suspended for telling the truth?
JD (85b089) — 6/30/2011 @ 12:07 pmAaron
I appreciate your attitude and your modesty. You have never struck me as a glory hound.
The controversy over the media’s professional behavior, in this case, the citation of another’s research, is far larger than this one incident. This widespread unprofessional behavior undermines the voice of conservative and libertarian bloggers. It is not a matter of “giving glory”, but rather that such actions limit the political influence of conservative and libertarian blogs. Congressional representatives also imitate this behavior. I do not mean to paint with too broad a brush, but stealing intellectual property makes Fox look unprofessional. None of us want that result. Neither should the news director at Fox.
In contrast, liberal blogs are cited, interviewed and wined and dined by the liberal media and congressional members. Media outlets appear to understand their value. Apparently Fox does not “get it”.
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/30/2011 @ 12:07 pmThat was Natelson, from the Independence Institute, referrred to in Volokh, btw, You would
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/30/2011 @ 12:14 pmthink a Princeton man would know this, so we didn’t end up in the ‘e plub nista’ era
The founders knew about and understood basic human nature, and that no matter what changes progress brought, man’s nature would always remain constant and unchanging.
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/30/2011 @ 12:17 pm“you know the other thing is the founders knew about alot of thing we didn’t know about.
like what it is like to live under tyranny. how the rule of law could be tossed aside, how the passions of a legislature could lead to oppression.”
Aaron – I was going to note this on another post on the subject. Our framers clearly had examples of the types of government they did not want this country to have. Our Living Constitution, no practical limit on government power, friends conveniently forget that fact when they denigrate the Constitution for being a 231 year-old musty old relic that needs modernizing, presumably so they can increase their power over peoples’ lives.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/30/2011 @ 12:18 pmian
thanks for filling in that blank. i was too lazy/busy to look that up.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/30/2011 @ 12:33 pmOf course FoxNews would pick up on this story, as they are just a mouth-piece for the VRWC that holds the reins of the GOP, and will tell/repeat any “falsehood” that advances the meme that Teh Won is not leading us out of the wilderness, but further in….
Well, I could go on, and on…
But, Well Done, AW!
AD-RtR/OS! (18ec4c) — 6/30/2011 @ 1:16 pmComment by Aaron Worthing — 6/30/2011 @ 12:01 pm
Not only did they read Cicero (in Latin), they understood Cicero!
Or, as the new version goes:
AD-RtR/OS! (18ec4c) — 6/30/2011 @ 1:19 pmA Progressive, reads Marx and Lenin;
A Conservative, understands Marx and Lenin!
I like Groucho Marx and John Lenin.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/30/2011 @ 1:26 pmOther things the founders never knew about:
They didn’t know about AR-pattern rifles,
AD-RtR/OS! (18ec4c) — 6/30/2011 @ 1:27 pmbut I’m sure George Washington, “Light-Horse” Harry Lee, and Francis “the Old Swamp Fox” Marion,
would have approved of them – in all of their variations!
btw, we have video. and as you can see from the image, that is clearly my word. the phrasing is identical to my “talking points.”
Ad, btw, i think having gotten an account at Big Journalism, i am now officially part of the VRWC. card carrying member.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/30/2011 @ 1:27 pm==Not only did they read Cicero (in Latin), they understood Cicero==
Part of the depth in our founding fathers’ knowledge base may have been that they did not attend schools taught by moronic drum bangers such as those in Madison Wisconsin.
elissa (f08e75) — 6/30/2011 @ 1:27 pmComment by Aaron Worthing — 6/30/2011 @ 1:26 pm
Well, one out of two isn’t bad;
AD-RtR/OS! (18ec4c) — 6/30/2011 @ 1:28 pmnot good either, but not bad!
Comment by elissa — 6/30/2011 @ 1:27 pm
Yes, they were mostly “self taught”, which can be a very rigorous curricula.
AD-RtR/OS! (18ec4c) — 6/30/2011 @ 1:30 pmThere’s been a lot of dissecting what starchilds twitter account looked like when GNC got suspicious, but does anybody know what GNC’s looked like? How many friends/followers?
I noticed the pictures of her in the bee costume from high school were posted May 15. The day before she decided to bring up Weiner to a “high school” girl.
MayBee (081489) — 6/30/2011 @ 2:08 pmmaybee, i think you accidentally posted in the wrong thread.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/30/2011 @ 2:16 pmyeas- sorry aaron! Delete delete delete!
MayBee (081489) — 6/30/2011 @ 2:21 pmGreat – the video. Toldja! Ha!
Yeah, I wouldn’t waste too much time getting upset at Fox. Some intern liked Aaron’s post and some producer thought the issues Aaron outlined would make a good segment. That’s GREAT. Great for Aaron, the rest of us AND The US Constitution. Good for Fox for paying attention to the Constitution & the Time story, and for bringing on the great Judge Napolitano to defend our treasured doc.
But mostly good for Aaron for taking the time for a looong but extremely helpful post about a REALLY important matter that doesn’t always appeal to the non-lawyers, I’m guessing.
Lizbuddie (133456) — 6/30/2011 @ 4:15 pmMy like made it 453
sierra (121696) — 6/30/2011 @ 5:24 pm“False Claim #1: The Constitution does not limit the Federal Government.” The relevant passage you left out:
“Nor are we in danger of flipping the Constitution on its head, as some of the Tea Party faithful contend. Their view of the founding documents was pretty well summarized by Texas Congressman Ron Paul back in 2008: “The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose — to restrain the
federal government.” Well, not exactly. In fact, the framers did the precise opposite. They strengthened the center and weakened the states. The states had extraordinary power under the Articles of Confederation. Most of them had their own navies and their own currencies. The truth is, the Constitution massively strengthened the central government of the U.S. for the simple reason that it established one where none had existed before. (See portraits of the Tea Party movement.)
If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. …”
Not exactly brilliant scholarship, but not as bad as you would claim. That was number one. After that I didn’t bother with the rest.
On the theory of interpretation, look to Canada.
And no the Constitution is not what it once was. And it will not be in the future what it is today. The Catholic church changed a lot even before Vatican II. Change is a fact not a theory.
zero mostel (d80b5a) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:05 pmClever, clever Zero…
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:06 pmZero, ‘The constitution does not limit the federal government’ is a damn strong statement, and it is false, even if the constitution did specify powers the government does have.
That’s the best you’ve got?
Dustin (b7410e) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:07 pmAnother example of foolishness, Simon Schama, in the Daily News Beast saying Jefferson couldn’t have been elected as a Republican nowadays, let that thought linger for a moment,
ian cormac (d380ce) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:09 pmYou go Dustin!
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:09 pmDustin, tell Zero to “talk to the HAND”!
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:10 pmI just realized I conflated Aaron’s paraphrase with the article, but it’s still a valid reading.
Just look at how Zero’s quote explains that the constitution does the “precise opposite” of “restrain [ing] the government”. I may not have it in me to list all the flaws in Richard’s article, but Aaron’s summary of this point is absolutely correct.
What’s that dang term they where using? “Contexter?” anyone remember that?
Dustin (b7410e) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:13 pmDustin, I am still rolling over the cartoon you posted. Dude, it’s killin’ me!
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:19 pmZero,
How does one word of what you quoted negate what he said?
Yes, ron paul went too far. the key purpose in assembling the convention at all was to create a stronger central gov. But that doesn’t mean they wanted to create an unlimited gov. In two paragraphs we veer from paul saying that the constitution is only there to limit gov, to Stengel claiming that there no limits. The correct answer is between those two extremes.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:26 pmZero, I doubt you are an authority on Vatican II, or the Constitution. Please enlighten us about Vatican II. Was it a Pastoral council, or a dogmatic council? And, please refrain from using a search engine to answer my question.
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:28 pmThey have turned the commerce clause on it’s head,
ian cormac (d380ce) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:29 pmit now deals in everything but trade,
“After that I didn’t bother with the rest.”
Zero – Small wonder. Don’t give up your day job.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:29 pmzero writes ““False Claim #1: The Constitution does not limit the Federal Government.” …
“If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. …”
What you put in between, zero, does not get us from the first sentence to the second. That the Constitution was intended to create a Federal government where the Articles created a nonentity, that is true. But that the Federal government was not limited was always a false claim. That the Federal government was not intended to be limited was always a false claim. The irrelevant claim that the Constitution created a stronger Federal government is true but irrelevant.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:31 pmanother great job, Aaron! Listened to Levin on the way home from work (for entertainment purposes, don’t bash colonel!) and he was talking about Stengel’s disinformation – he may have called him Mengele – I thought, what a perfect time to call in and mention your article, which really lays it bare… especially if I mentioned the linkage to Patterico… bang! zoom!
ColonelHaiku (e761c8) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:57 pmand comments closed again…
ColonelHaiku (e761c8) — 6/30/2011 @ 6:58 pmlike #457
ColonelHaiku (e761c8) — 6/30/2011 @ 7:00 pmCol,
you got on the air with levin? how did he react?
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 6/30/2011 @ 7:06 pm________________________________________
Before the Internet and the ubiquity of watch dog’s like you, Stengel and the Times of the world got away with misinforming the public.
I like to think that this age of modern, instant communication will manage to influence and alter the fundamentals of human nature. That the tendency of a large percentage of people to be devoid of common sense (in general terms, to be nonsensically liberal) will be upended, and that they’ll be shaken out of their stupor. But I see various trends (both good and bad) dating back generations — and which have yet to change even though all the major chapters of the 20th century, early 21st century — hanging on through thick or thin, and therefore sense that even this medium — cyberspace — doesn’t make as much a difference as one might assume.
A perfect example of that was the ability of a very foolish, extremely leftwing, pock-marked, controversial, non-conforming and deviously manipulative person to get into the White House in 2008. The human nature behind that (ie, the behavior of a large percentage of the electorate) is a key reason that goofballs like Richard Stengel will always somehow manage to get away with more crap than they deserve, regardless of the existence of bloggers, the Internet, people like Aaron Worthing, etc.
Simply put, nonsensical left-leaning biases are innate to many humans, and the Earth will have to collide with the sun before that idiosyncrasy ever changes.
Mark (411533) — 6/30/2011 @ 7:31 pmAaron, I’m not giving Stengel that much credit. But like, most people, even most knowledgeable people, I don;t think it’s worth jumping all over him. If you, or Fox, want to argue with a serious defender of the living constitution argue with Jack Balkin
I did find this here though: “For years I thought of Professor Balkin as inconsequential. Now I am convinced he is just a hack.” Wow. You’re really in no position to call him inconsequential, so calling him a hack is just silly.
You really should read this: Bush v. Gore and the Boundary
zero mostel (d80b5a) — 6/30/2011 @ 7:49 pmBetween Law and Politics. PDF. If you’re not a hack you’ll need to respond to it carefully.
So zero is an imbecile.
JD (318f81) — 6/30/2011 @ 8:01 pmZero – Given your laughable #35, you don’t seem to be in any kind of a position to be evaluating, much less criticizing legal talent or writing. Just sayin’.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/30/2011 @ 8:06 pmzero
Why do you assume my assessment of him was flippant. No, i have given him more than a chance to impress me with his intellect and he has failed. and what he said about bush v. gore and vinson’s ruling was hackery.
And for those wondering where that quote came from, i wrote it, here:
https://patterico.com/2011/02/01/scattered-news-reactions-and-rebuttals-in-the-discussion-of-vinson%E2%80%99s-ruling/
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 6/30/2011 @ 8:11 pmNo, Aaron… sadly, I did not get through. But what a perfect opportunity.
ColonelHaiku (e761c8) — 6/30/2011 @ 8:28 pmThe parallel is between Vincon’s claim of exceptional circumstances and with the court’s similar claim. And no, there has been no push to unify the various rules and procedures for vote counting throughout the country.
Scalia: “Counting somebody else’s dimpled chad and not counting my dimpled chad is not giving equal protection of the law,”
Where’s the revolutionary change he calls for? Where are the cases?
zero mostel (d80b5a) — 6/30/2011 @ 8:36 pmAin’t none. Read the PDF.
zero
> Vincon’s [sic] claim of exceptional circumstances and with the court’s similar claim.
They were exceptional circumstances. that did not mean they were not precedents.
> And no, there has been no push to unify the various rules and procedures for vote counting throughout the country.
It doesn’t have to be unified across the country, but across the state. if texas counts votes one way, and massachusetts another, that is no violation of the 14th amendment. duh.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 6/30/2011 @ 8:49 pm“And no, there has been no push to unify the various rules and procedures for vote counting throughout the country.”
Zero – Was one promised? You are a Grade-A moron.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/30/2011 @ 9:00 pmI’ll bet zero is a big Bradblog fan. He is just that dumb.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/30/2011 @ 9:02 pmAnd bigoted.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/30/2011 @ 9:02 pm“zero” indeed.
Icy Texan (cddc7c) — 7/1/2011 @ 12:44 amIn Matt Taibbi’s latest Rolling Stone Magazine screed against Michele Bachmann, he writes:
“She blasted the 2010 census as a government plot and told people not to comply because the U.S. Constitution doesn’t require citizens to participate, when in fact it does.”
Call it Stengel’s Disease: making up things in the Constitution that aren’t really there.
Icy Texan (cddc7c) — 7/1/2011 @ 1:19 amha! “stengel’s disease”
ColonelHaiku (e761c8) — 7/1/2011 @ 5:24 ampeople don’t know that richard
grandson of casey
Hey, Mr. Worthing! There’s a link to your article at Maggie’s Farm this morning.
ColonelHaiku (e761c8) — 7/1/2011 @ 5:55 amAnother voice to be heard on whether or not The Constitution is a restraint on a Federal Government:
“It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. [The Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”
AD-RtR/OS! (06e272) — 7/1/2011 @ 7:35 am–Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on a National Bank, 1791
Patriot Post, Founder’s Quote Daily, 7/1/2011
“if Texas counts votes one way, and massachusetts another, that is no violation of the 14th amendment. duh.”
By that logic Washington DC legally could have segregated schools.
Google Bolling vs. Sharpe. “Duh.”
And read Balkin’s piece.
zero mostel (d80b5a) — 7/1/2011 @ 10:15 amHuh?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/1/2011 @ 12:22 pmpeople don’t know that richard
grandson of casey
— Ha! Richard guilty of the ultimate swing-and-a-miss. Tried to knock the COTUS out of Relevency Park and instead just whiffed!
Icy Texan (cddc7c) — 7/1/2011 @ 12:32 pm